Blame Holder, not Scott

June 24, 2012

The Sun Sentinel's editorial board got it wrong again. It is supposedly Gov. Scott's fault that Attorney General Eric Holder is suing him. That is the same Holder who won't provide information he has to determine if people are eligible. Who is suing other states because they want proof from voters that they are eligible. Who is suing states that want immigration laws upheld. Who refused to pursue the case against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, which was seen on national television. And for which he already had a default judgement.

Eric Holder's voter actions are not in the interest of keeping voting legal.

The suggestion that Scott's efforts are "suppression of the vote, aimed at mainly Democrats and minorities" is out of order. Your disdain for Gov. Scott is obvious, political and doesn't belong in editorials.

It's a touching story, but I see no sense for a man of 90 to take a job that could be filled by a younger man or woman who is trying to survive in today's economy. These people are trying to feed a family and maintain their homes. He had his shot at success. Now let another person try.

I also believe the employers are looking for a bargin — 1. No health insurance 2. Low pay 3. He doesn't need a green card.

If Mr. Levinstein wants something to do, let him volunteer.Being a vet of World War II, he should be aware the VA and other charities are consistantly looking for people to assist in many various positions.

Len Levy, West Palm Beach

Federal spending is answer

Criticizing Barack Obama because the federal government is spending a lot of money is like criticizing Franklin Roosevelt for going to war against Japan. The guy doesn't have much choice, folks.

Remember September 2008? Remember John McCain shutting down his presidential campaign and flying to Washington to meet in the Cabinet Room with Obama and the incompetents in the Bush administration who hadn't noticed that the core of the American economy had melted down? Remember? Did Barack Obama have anything to do with that?

No, but the next January he inherited a recession that was losing 700,000 jobs a month. Republican obstructionists in Congress only allowed Obama to have a stimulus fund that would put just three feet of dirt in the hole, and until he can get six more feet of stimulus spending, drivers in this economy are going to continue to creep slowly around the gaping hole.

FDR tried all manner of stimulus make-work programs to kill the Great Depression — almost every one struck down by Republican appointees on the Supreme Court — but it wasn't until the federal government started spending furiously for World War II that we finally got out of that hole.

Greece and Spain and half of Europe are trying to implement spending restraints these days. How's it working out for them? About the only thing worse I can think of would be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which would put the entire federal government in a permanent straitjacket.

W. Rick Garr, Fort Lauderdale

Obama not eligible

Your June 19 article on President Obama's ballot hearing was refreshing in that the Sun Sentinel has not reported much at all on the allegations that he is ineligible for the presidency.

President John Adams said, "We are a government of laws, not of men." President Obama once said that , "No man is above the law." Everyone agrees, but not all act accordingly.

President Obama's lawyers argued that since he has not been officially nominated as the Democratic candidate, the case should be dismissed. It is true that he hasn't been officially nominated.

On the other hand, the opposing attornies argued that President Obama's name appeared as the official Democratic candidate at the Florida Presidential Preference Primary on Jan. 31. And clearly, President Obama is the choice of Democrats and his name will appear on the Florida ballot. So President Obama is the unofficially nominated candidate of the Democratic Party, and his name will officially appear on the Florida ballot this fall.

This legal strategy of President Obama's lawyers appears to be one of kicking the can down the road in an attempt to avoid the real issue: Is President Obama a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution? According to the historically and legally accepted definition, he is not. Such a citizen is born in the United States by parents who are/were both U.S. citizens at the time of a child's birth. This definition has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875. President Obama's father was Kenyan and never became a U.S. citizen. Based on the Court's affirmation of the meaning of natural born citizen, President Obama does not qualify and should not even be campaigning for the presidency. Unlike his 2008 opponent, John McCain, President Obama was not vetted for natural born citizenship.